Legal Opinion

Tate v. Stevens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided September 29, 2000PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to bifurcate the trial (see, *1040CPLR 603; 22 NYCRR 202.42). Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries that he sustained when defendant’s car hit plaintiffs car at an intersection. Each party contends that the other ran a red light. Plaintiff contends that evidence of his injuries is necessary to counter the contention of defendant that he entered the intersection from a complete stop and was traveling at a speed of 7 or 8 miles per hour.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Parmar v. SkinnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  2. Addesso v. Belting Associates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  3. Loncz v. BlagroveAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Delano v. GrazulewiczAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
  2. Carr-Hoagland v. PattersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019
  3. DiCesare v. GlasgowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API